The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence » The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence

The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence
Arguments that attempt to disprove God by lack of evidence beg the question

Page: 1 2

The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/06/08 - 12:44 AM: Subject: The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence	#1
This post addresses the idea that the existence of God can be disproven by lack of evidence, defined as anything demonstrably in existence which may lead one to believe one of multiple belief options. This post does not attempt to prove the existence of God, any other deity, or anything spiritual. It also does not address inductive arguments about how the existence of lack thereof of evidence that God exists may increase or decrease the perceived likelihood of God's existence. Finally, this post does not assert that evidence of God actually exists. I believe that evidence of God does exist, but that is not at issue in this post. This post takes the position that the idea that God can be specifically disproven by lack of evidence of God is inherently logically falacious. Disproving existence by lack of evidence is normally considered impossible, but nonetheless some individuals attempt to assert positively that God does not exist, and yet claim that they would believe in God if they saw evidence of Him. Thus they are assuming positively that evidence does not exist, and this assumption is critical to their belief that God does not exist. They are therefore claiming that God does not exist based on a lack of evidence in God. The easy way to address such an argument is to suggest that it is impossible that all evidence in physical existence has been gathered, and therefore it is possible that some evidence that God exists may itself exist but not have been found. The trouble with this easy objection is that it fails to address God's existence if no evidence of His existence actually is present in physical reality. An alternate objection could state that God might exist without evidence of God being present in physical reality. I do not attempt to address that objection here. It is necessary to find an objection to the idea that God does not exist due to lack of evidence in God that is more robust in various hypothetical arguments. In particular, it is necessary to address this argument in the hypothetical situation that everything in physical reality is simultaneously known by the individual claiming that God does not exist. If this is done, then less strong arguments admitting a lack of total knowledge of the universe are also defeated. To this end, I propose the possibility that even if all of physical reality was known to an individual, the individual might fail to attribute the proper evidentiary status to some part of physical reality. In other words, the individual might find something that is evidence of God's existence, and fail to recognize it as such. In order for the individual trying to claim God's nonexistence to assert positively that any aspect of physical reality is not evidence of God, that individual must disclaim the possibility that it comes from God, as if it comes from God then it is evidence of God. In order to positively assert that the subject does not come from God, the individual must positively assert that God does not exist. However, since this is the individual's ultimate conclusion and now also a premise, the individual begs the question. I posit the following argument which for the purposes of this post I will call "The Atheistic Argument:" 1: If God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. 2: Evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. 3: God does not exist (1,2). Here the hypothetical atheist makes a positive claim that God does not exist, based on a positive claim that if God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality, and another positive claim that evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. The counterargument that I will make hinges on the idea that the hypothetical atheist is assuming that God does not exist in his assessment of each part of physical reality as non-evidentiary of God's existence (note that he is not asserting that they are evidence of God's non-existence. Rather, he is asserting that they fail to be evidence of God's existence). For my counterargument, I will discuss a single potential piece of physical reality that might be evidentiary of God. This piece of physical reality could be anything that demonstrably exists. For my counterargument, I will use the example of the human quality of religious faith. People do not agree on whether or not faith is well-founded, but everyone can agree that some people have religious faith. If the reader finds this example to be difficult, then it can be replaced with absolutely anything in physical reality. A dog, energy in the universe, or even one's own self are equally useful subjects for my counterargument. For shorthand purposes, I will refer to "the human quality of religious faith" as "faith" and "evidence of God's existence" as "evidence of God." Allow me at this time to state premises that will be used in my counterargument. These are NOT positive assertions. All that must be done to demonstrate that The Atheistic Argument is logically fallacious is to prove that the premise "God does not exist" is necessary for The Atheistic Argument to function, and this can be done without positively asserting the premises below: 4 Faith exists. 5 If God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 6 A gift is evidence of its giver. 7 God exists. From the four above premises, if they are true, we may reach two conclusions: 8 Faith is a gift from God (4,5,7). 9 Faith is evidence of God (6,8). 10: Evidence of God exists (4,9). The Atheistic Argument asserts in premise 2 that evidence of God does not exist. Therefore 2 and 10 are mutually exclusive opposites. 2 is ~10. Since premise 10 MUST follow from premises 4-7 if premises 4-7 are true, The Atheistic Argument, which relies on premise 2, requires one of the following: ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 Note that the subject being examined, in this case religious faith, can actually be anything that demonstrably exists in physical reality. If the human quality of religious faith were, for any reason, not believed to exist at all, then we would simply change the subject to one that the atheist and the theist can agree exists. In this way we can always find some subject with which to replace "faith" in premises 4-7 that is stipulated by the atheist to exist. Therefore, the atheist asserts that 4 is true. The Atheistic Argument therefore requires any one of the following: ~5 ~6 ~7 I will assert here that the atheist can not, with any meaningful and useful concept of reality, assert ~6. A gift exists only if its giver exists. If, for whatever reason, the concept of a gift is found inconvenient, then we can just as easily state "creation" and "creator" in place of "gift" and "giver." The point is that IF any subject has been created or given, then it is evidence of the one from whom it comes. Premises 5 and 7 are the two premises that address whether or not the subject actually DOES come from some creator/giver. Since the atheist will stipulate to 4 and 6, and since the atheist must assert that 10 is not true in order for 2 to be true, and since 10 is true if 4, 5, 6, and 7 are true, The Atheistic Argument is left with the requirement that one of the following be true: ~5 ~7 These two premises the atheist actually can attempt to disagree with. In order to do so, the atheist must only incorporate one of the two into The Atheistic Argument as a positively asserted premise (remember, since the atheist is asserting The Atheistic Argument positively, that is, with certainty, all of the premises of The Atheistic Argument must also be asserted positively). Let us state that the atheist chooses to disagree with premise 5. The Atheistic Argument becomes: 1: If God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. 11: If it is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God then it is true that (premise 2) evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. 12 (or ~5): It is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 2: Evidence of God does not exist in physical reality (11,12). 3: God does not exist. At first glance this appears sound. However, compare specifically premise 12 and premise 3. Premise 12 is only relevant if God exists. Premise 3 states that God does not exist. If God does not exist then any contingency for what would be the case if God did exist is irrelevant and ceases to have any bearing on the logical argument. In essence, premise 12 can only support premise 2 if premise 3 is untrue. If premise 2 were true and premise 3 untrue then premise 1 would also have to be untrue. More to the point, if premise 3 is untrue then the whole purpose of the Atheistic Argument fails. Simply put, if the atheist is so sure that God does not exist (remember, he is positively asserting this claim) then he should not find himself in the position of having to argue what would or would not be true if God existed in order to assert his claim. What this means is that the atheist will stipulate to premise 4, can not object to premise 6 with any comprehenisble concept of evidence and reality, and can not object to premise 5 in light of his conclusion. For The Atheistic Argument to succeed, it requires premise 2, for premise 2 to succeed, it requires ~10, and for ~10, at least one of premises 4-7 must be untrue, but premises 4-6 can not be objected to by the atheist. Therefore the atheist MUST object to premise 7. Thus ~7 becomes incorporated into the argument. 1: 1: If God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. 13: If it is not true that (premise 7) God exists then it is true that (premise 2) evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. 14 (or ~7): It is not true that (premise 7) God exists. 2: Evidence of God does not exist in physical reality (13,14). 3: God does not exist. Premise 14, however, can be rewritten quite simply as "God does not exist." Thus we see that in order for the conclusion of The Atheistic Argument to be positively asserted, it must assert the premise that "God does not exist." However, the conclusion of The Atheistic Argument is that "God does not exist." The Atheistic Argument therefore inherently begs the question. The reason it does this is because, in order to discount as evidence of God aspects of physical reality which are obviously real and which may be claimed as evidentiary of God, the argument must assert that God does not exist. There is no other way to prove that a given subject does not come from God, and if the subject comes from God, then it is evidence of God. The conclusion that one must come to, which has been the focus of this post, is that it is impossible, even given omniscience pertaining to all things in physical reality, to assert positively that God exists in a logically sound way. The implication of this conclusion is that any individual who would stipulate to the idea that he or she would believe in God if presented with evidence of God's existence can not assert any positive belief in the non-existence of God, even if lack of evidence as to God's existence is not the explicit reason for the stated positive belief in the non-existence of God. This post has not addressed the question of identity of God, as it is not intended to do so. The author positively asserts from a personal experience by which he holds no belief that he can sway others that the Judeo-Christian God YHWH, the Son of that God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit constitute one, and the only, existent God. However, the above counterargument to the positive assertion of God's non-existence by perceived lack of evidence is directed at an atheistic viewpoint in particular and is not intended to address alternative theistic beliefs. As stipulated originally, the purpose of this post has not been to prove God's existence, nor address issues about how evidence or lack of evidence might alter perceived likelihood of God's existence by the observer. In accordance with its intent, the post has not addressed these issues. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:39 AM:	#2
Christiangoth wrote: This post takes the position that the idea that God can be specifically disproven by lack of evidence of God is inherently logically falacious. Disproving existence by lack of evidence is normally considered impossible, but nonetheless some individuals attempt to assert positively that God does not exist, and yet claim that they would believe in God if they saw evidence of Him. Thus they are assuming positively that evidence does not exist, and this assumption is critical to their belief that God does not exist. They are therefore claiming that God does not exist based on a lack of evidence in God. So really it seems that your post is just one big Straw Man argument. You seem to be upset that atheists are rational. That is, you are upset that atheists, like other people who actually use evidence, would change their beliefs on the basis of evidence. You are also broadly assuming that atheists do not admit that there is evidence for the existence of God when they may indeed admit that such evidence exists. Real adults, when faced with evidence, must make choices about how to respond to this evidence. In many cases they must evaluate evidence that speaks both for and against a proposition. In some cases, they are confronted with propositions that can gain a minimal amount of evidence but that are so outlandish as to make that evidence too meagre to provide significant confirmation. In other words, the individual might find something that is evidence of God's existence, and fail to recognize it as such. In order for the individual trying to claim God's nonexistence to assert positively that any aspect of physical reality is not evidence of God, that individual must disclaim the possibility that it comes from God, as if it comes from God then it is evidence of God. In order to positively assert that the subject does not come from God, the individual must positively assert that God does not exist. However, since this is the individual's ultimate conclusion and now also a premise, the individual begs the question. This is really not a good argument. An individual trying to make the claim of the nonexistence of a particular deity can indeed entertain the idea that every physical object was created by that deity. What matters is the hypotheses about physical objects that follow from the claim that the deity exists. If the existence of the deity means that there are no orange fruits, then this deity clearly does not exist and one can establish this without a priori rejecting the notion that the deity exists. Real adults who consider the physical world must have some sort of hypothesis or idea about the physical world to consider. If a the truth of a proposition bears absolutely no relationship to the physical world, then this proposition is not a matter of physical consideration. I posit the following argument which for the purposes of this post I will call "The Atheistic Argument:" 1: If God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. 2: Evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. 3: God does not exist (1,2). Here the hypothetical atheist makes a positive claim that God does not exist, based on a positive claim that if God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality, and another positive claim that evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. This is, as promised, the Straw Man argument. The lack of citations for this argument as actually used by atheists is symptomatic of it fallaciousness. I, on the other hand, can use your post as evidence that believers in God tend to fail to understand the relationship between their belief and empirical evidence, whether or not I am also a believer. For my counterargument, I will discuss a single potential piece of physical reality that might be evidentiary of God. This piece of physical reality could be anything that demonstrably exists. For my counterargument, I will use the example of the human quality of religious faith. People do not agree on whether or not faith is well-founded, but everyone can agree that some people have religious faith. If the reader finds this example to be difficult, then it can be replaced with absolutely anything in physical reality. A dog, energy in the universe, or even one's own self are equally useful subjects for my counterargument. For shorthand purposes, I will refer to "the human quality of religious faith" as "faith" and "evidence of God's existence" as "evidence of God." If "A dog, energy in the universe, or even one's own self" are really equally useful subjects, then why not use one of them? 4 Faith exists. 5 If God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 6 A gift is evidence of its giver. 7 God exists. From the four above premises, if they are true, we may reach two conclusions: 8 Faith is a gift from God (4,5,7). 9 Faith is evidence of God (6,8). 10: Evidence of God exists (4,9). The real problem here is premise 6 and premise 9. A gift is not always identifiable as a gift and, as such, is not always evidence for a giver. The fact that I have a watch is not evidence to people who meet me that my wife exists, even though the watch was a gift from my wife. People must first come to know that the watch was a gift and that the watch was a gift from my wife. Even that is poor evidence, as they can accept that the watch was a gift without at the same time knowing that it was a gift from my wife. If people know that my sister gives me a lot of gifts and they know that my watch is a gift, the evidence may lead them to the proposition that my watch is a gift from my sister. The Atheistic Argument asserts in premise 2 that evidence of God does not exist. You can't simply say this. Where is your argument? What is it about premise 2 that leads to this uncovering of this enthymeme? In many atheist arguments worth addressing, one finds that the evidential claims rest on specific hypotheses of the physical world made on the basis of the nature of a given deity. In other atheist arguments, the lack of evidence is not a claim that there are no physical objects or events that could conceivably be created by a deity, but that no (or few) physical objects or events can be reasonably presented as evidence. At the scene of a death, there may be many items that were in the presence of a murderer. Yet this is not part of the evidential reasoning process that leads one to conclude that the death was the result of murder. Coroners can conclude that no murder took place without a priori rejecting the claim that a murder took place. Note that the subject being examined, in this case religious faith, can actually be anything that demonstrably exists in physical reality. If the human quality of religious faith were, for any reason, not believed to exist at all, then we would simply change the subject to one that the atheist and the theist can agree exists. In this way we can always find some subject with which to replace "faith" in premises 4-7 that is stipulated by the atheist to exist. Really, you want to make the claim like the following: 4' Dogs exist. 5' If God exists and dogs exist then dogs are a gift from God. 8' Dogs are gifts from God (4,5,7). 9' Dogs are evidence of God (6,8). Why not something like this? 4'' Racists exist. 5'' If God exists and racists exist then racists are a gift from God. 8'' Racists are gifts from God (4,5,7). 9'' Racists are evidence of God (6,8). And why not something like this? 4''' Objects more than a billion years old exist. 5''' If God exists and racists exist then Objects more than a billion years old are a gift from God. 8''' Objects more than a billion years old are gifts from God (4,5,7). 9''' Objects more than a billion years old are evidence of God (6,8). This last set of propositions really comes into conflict with the beliefs of some people about their deity. I will assert here that the atheist can not, with any meaningful and useful concept of reality, assert ~6. A gift exists only if its giver exists. If, for whatever reason, the concept of a gift is found inconvenient, then we can just as easily state "creation" and "creator" in place of "gift" and "giver." The point is that IF any subject has been created or given, then it is evidence of the one from whom it comes. You are making the same mistake here about evidential reasoning. Just because something could have been gifted or created does not mean that they thing was gifted or created. Just because I have a watch that was given to me does not mean that the watch was a gift and no person can take it as evidence for a gift without some additional piece of evidence relevant to that gifting being presented. No reasonable person can accept premise 6 as written. One might be able to accept, "When one has evidence that an object is a gift then one has evidence that there was a giver of that object." But you haven't anywhere shown that there is any evidence that faith, or anything else, is a gift, in your argument you have merely stipulated the fact that faith is a gift. 12 (or ~5): It is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 3: God does not exist. At first glance this appears sound. However, compare specifically premise 12 and premise 3. Premise 12 is only relevant if God exists. Premise 3 states that God does not exist. If God does not exist then any contingency for what would be the case if God did exist is irrelevant and ceases to have any bearing on the logical argument. This is not how logic works. One can have many irrelevant premises without committing some sort of contradiction. An argument can have the premise, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then Kennedy is still president" without being invalid. In essence, premise 12 can only support premise 2 if premise 3 is untrue. If premise 2 were true and premise 3 untrue then premise 1 would also have to be untrue. More to the point, if premise 3 is untrue then the whole purpose of the Atheistic Argument fails. Simply put, if the atheist is so sure that God does not exist (remember, he is positively asserting this claim) then he should not find himself in the position of having to argue what would or would not be true if God existed in order to assert his claim. Here you show your real problem with understanding evidential reasoning. One has to entertain hypotheses in order to evaluate these hypotheses against the available evidence. If the existence of Thor means that Thor should be out there, personally smiting each cloud with his hammer in order to get that cloud to rain, then we can say that there is evidence against the existence of Thor. But we can only say this if we actually consider the consequences. If only those who already believed in a proposition got to evaluate that proposition, then nobody could ever learn anything. The implication of this conclusion is that any individual who would stipulate to the idea that he or she would believe in God if presented with evidence of God's existence can not assert any positive belief in the non-existence of God, even if lack of evidence as to God's existence is not the explicit reason for the stated positive belief in the non-existence of God. Do you then, believe that Thor exists? You cannot say that Thor does not exist if you would possibly change you mind about Thor's existence when confronted with a gigantic Norseman with a shining hammer.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/06/08 - 10:11 AM:	#3
I will begin with noting that the use of the language "real adults" in two instances constitutes an argument ad hominem. Kwalish Kid wrote: You are also broadly assuming that atheists do not admit that there is evidence for the existence of God when they may indeed admit that such evidence exists. ... In some cases, ["real adults"] are confronted with propositions that can gain a minimal amount of evidence but that are so outlandish as to make that evidence too meagre to provide significant confirmation. Key to what you write here is the phrase "significant confirmation." You are discussing the implications of perceived evidence on an inductive argument. I clearly stated in my post that I had no intent of discussing how evidence or lack of evidence might be perceived as increasing or decreasing the likelihood of the existence of God. I am rather dealing with the issue that there are some atheists that positively assert God's non-existence. Such individuals, if they admit that some subject evidentiary of God exists, must claim a lack of belief in God for a different reason. I also explicitly stated that it was only my intent to address the idea that God's non-existence can be proven by lack of evidence. Thus I made it clear that it was not my intent to discuss other perceived reasons why an individual might claim positively God's non-existence. Kwalish Kid wrote: An individual trying to make the claim of the nonexistence of a particular deity... The words "particular deity" are opposed to my explicitly stated purpose. I explained clearly that I was writing about the broad concept of the existence or non-existence of a deity, but not a particular one. Kwalish Kid wrote: An individual trying to make the claim of the nonexistence of a particular deity can indeed entertain the idea that every physical object was created by that deity. What matters is the hypotheses about physical objects that follow from the claim that the deity exists. If the existence of the deity means that there are no orange fruits, then this deity clearly does not exist and one can establish this without a priori rejecting the notion that the deity exists. That is true. Your argument is a simple modus tollens: p: If deity exists then orange fruits exist. q: No orange fruits exist. r: Deity does not exist. I do not object to that argument's validity. The issue is that it does not contradict what I wrote. I describe a situation in which a particular subject is already stipulated to exist and only whether or not it is evidentiary of God is at issue. The modus tollens you use is not applicable because I describe a situation in which orange fruit (evidence) may exist, and the atheist is trying to positively assert that it does not. I believe the atheist is trying to assert that orange fruit does not exist on the basis that the deity does not exist. If I am wrong, then it is not for a reason expressed by this objection. Kwalish Kid wrote: This is, as promised, the Straw Man argument. The lack of citations for this argument as actually used by atheists is symptomatic of it fallaciousness. This is not a Straw Man argument. My post is meant to address all positive assertions that God does not exist that would cease to be asserted positively if evidence of God was presented. These particular positive assertions, since they would cease to be positively asserted if evidence of God was presented, assume that (premise 1) if God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. These particular positive assertions also rely on the belief that evidence does not exist, since if premise 1 is assumed and premise 3, that God does not exist, is being positively asserted, premise 2, that evidence of God does not exist, must be positively asserted. Thus the argument I wrote, which I called for the purpose of my post The Atheistic Argument, is absolutely on target for addressing the specific phenomena of positive assertions of God's non-existence where presentation of evidence of God would lead to the cessation of that positive assertion. As Kwalish Kid so elegantly stated, "real adults, when faced with evidence, must make choices about how to respond to this evidence." This means that if an atheist is faced with evidence that God exists, even if that evidence is perceived insufficient to constitute proof that God exists, the atheist must consider the evidence as constituting a possibility that God exists. If the atheist does so, then even if he believes the chance that God exists to be extremely small, his position is not the position that I am arguing against. I only am addressing the issue of positive assertions. If "real adults" evaluate their beliefs based on the presentation of evidence, and if any given atheist positively asserts that God does not exist, then atheists whom are real adults and positively assert God's nonexistence must rely on the positive assertion that evidence of God does not exist. My post is geared to make a very strong argument that such a positive assertion can not be made in a manner useful to the argument for which it is purposed. It is true that for the purposes of this argument I am assuming that the particular atheist in question does not admit that evidence of the existence of God is present in physical reality, which I am doing since if he makes such an admission then his belief as to the existence of God becomes the inductive belief that God very likely does not exist rather than the deductive belief that God does not exist, which is not what I am attempting to address. It is also true that I do not cite cases of atheists making the deductive argument stated explicitly. Rather, I feel that I have made a strong case for that any atheist that positively asserts God's nonexistence and is of a nature as to be swayed by evidence is making this argument implicitly. An implicit argument is very worthy of address. Kwalish Kid wrote: If "a dog, energy in the universe, or even one's own self" are really equally useful subjects, then why not use one of them? There is a reason that I used faith as an example which is inconsequential to the substance of this thread. You use a dog as the example from here on, so I shall do the same. Kwalish Kid wrote: The real problem here is premise 6 and premise 9. A gift is not always identifiable as a gift and, as such, is not always evidence for a giver. The fact that I have a watch is not evidence to people who meet me that my wife exists, even though the watch was a gift from my wife. People must first come to know that the watch was a gift and that the watch was a gift from my wife. It is true that the watch can not be positively asserted as evidence of your wife's existence by a person that meets you for the first time. However, the positive assertion that your wife exists based on a lack of evidence for your wife's existence demands that the person meeting you assert positively that your watch is not a gift from your wife. If the watch might be a gift from your wife then there is an equal probability that the watch is evidentiary of your wife, and thus an equal probability that evidence of your wife exists. For the positive assertion that your wife does not exist, there must be a positive assertion that evidence of your wife does not exist. Since we agree that your watch exists, we can agree that if your watch might be from your wife, then evidence of your wife might exist. The only way to claim that it does not with certainty is to claim that the probability that the watch comes from your wife is 0, but there is no reason to make that claim without a positive assertion that your wife exists. Herein lies the rub, for we can not assert that your wife does not exist with certainty in order to conclude he same. Kwalish Kid wrote: You can't simply say [that The Atheistic Argument asserts in premise 2 that evidence of God does not exist]. Where is your argument? What is it about premise 2 that leads to this uncovering of this enthymeme? In many atheist arguments worth addressing, one finds that the evidential claims rest on specific hypotheses of the physical world made on the basis of the nature of a given deity. In other atheist arguments, the lack of evidence is not a claim that there are no physical objects or events that could conceivably be created by a deity, but that no (or few) physical objects or events can be reasonably presented as evidence. At the scene of a death, there may be many items that were in the presence of a murderer. Yet this is not part of the evidential reasoning process that leads one to conclude that the death was the result of murder. Coroners can conclude that no murder took place without a priori rejecting the claim that a murder took place. As state previously in this reply and in my initial post, I am not attempting to address inductive atheistic arguments. I clearly defined the term The Atheistic Argument for the purpose of my post as the positive assertions that premise 1 and 2 are true and that therefore premise 3 is true. I certainly agree that atheistic arguments that rely on inductive reasoning are worthy of being addressed, but I do not find it expedient to attempt to address multiple arguments at the same time. I stated the argument to which I object to, which is requisite for the idea that the existence of God can literally be disproven for want of evidence even when it is assumed that God does not exist unless evidence of God exists. Then I explained why I object to this particular argument. No other atheistic argument is addressed than that which I defined in the original post. Kwalish Kid wrote: Why not something like this? 4'' Racists exist. 5'' If God exists and racists exist then racists are a gift from God. 8'' Racists are gifts from God (4,5,7). 9'' Racists are evidence of God (6,8). And why not something like this? 4''' Objects more than a billion years old exist. 5''' If God exists and racists exist then Objects more than a billion years old are a gift from God. 8''' Objects more than a billion years old are gifts from God (4,5,7). 9''' Objects more than a billion years old are evidence of God (6,8). This last set of propositions really comes into conflict with the beliefs of some people about their deity. Taking these in order first I do believe that racists were created by God. I do not believe that racism was created by God. I do not believe that God created racists as racists. I'll assume you will not object to my addressing the issue of racism instead of racists. My argument holds true even if you use racism as the subject. It can not be proven by an atheist that racism was not created by a deity, and as such it can not be proven that racism is not evidentiary of a deity's existence. Thus even if racism is the subject examined, then it still can not be positively asserted that God does not exist based on a positive assertion that there is no evidence of God. Remember, the argument is not designed to address the nature of God. Rather, it is designed to address whether or not a deity may exist. The same explanation can be used to assert that billion year-old objects may exist, and thus that God's non-existence can not be positively asserted out of a positive assertion of lack of evidence of God examining super-old objects as the subject. Incidentally, as a sidenote not consequential to the argument, I do believe in billion year-old objects. Kwalish Kid wrote: Just because something could have been gifted or created does not mean that they thing was gifted or created. This is true. If you have a pencil, an observer might look at it and think it could have been given to you, even though in reality you bought it. The issue is that The Atheistic Argument relies on the idea that the subject absolutely was not given. In order to state that God does not exist by The Atheistic Argument, one must state that there is no evidence of God. If the subject might be evidence of God then The Atheistic Argument fails and the atheist can only assert inductively a belief that God very likely does not exist, which type of belief I am not attempting to address. Thus the evidential nature of the subject need not be positively asserted as being from God, it need only be possible that it is from God for The Atheistic Argument to fail. Kwalish Kid wrote: This is not how logic works. One can have many irrelevant premises without committing some sort of contradiction. An argument can have the premise, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then Kennedy is still president" without being invalid. ... Here you show your real problem with understanding evidential reasoning. One has to entertain hypotheses in order to evaluate these hypotheses against the available evidence. If the existence of Thor means that Thor should be out there, personally smiting each cloud with his hammer in order to get that cloud to rain, then we can say that there is evidence against the existence of Thor. But we can only say this if we actually consider the consequences. You are here objecting to my objection to the coupling of two statements: 12 (or ~5): It is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 3: God does not exist. I will admit that you caught me explaining myself very poorly here. I believe that I am correct on the issue, but that it bears clarification. Allow me to readdress the issue: Consider the implications of ~5. ~5 states that in the event that God exists and faith exists then faith may still not come from God. ~5, however, leaves room for God to exist. If ~5 is true then it may be true that evidence of God does not exist even if God exists. If this is the case then premise 1, that if God exists then evidence of God exists, is not true. Thus if ~5 is true, we see that either: God exists (which is ~3). OR If God exists then evidence of God may not exist (which is ~1). Thus for both 3 and ~5 to be the case, ~1 must be the case, but if ~1 is the case then The Atheistic Argument fails. Since ~5 is mutually exclusive with the event that (1 AND 3), The Atheistic Argument can not include ~5 as a premise. Kwalish Kid wrote: Do you then, believe that Thor exists? You cannot say that Thor does not exist if you would possibly change you mind about Thor's existence when confronted with a gigantic Norseman with a shining hammer. Believe it or not, if I was looking Thor right in the eyes as he smote clouds with Mjolnir, I would still deny his divinity. I might accept his existence, but I am personally so absolutely certain of The Triune God that no evidence could ever strike that certainty. I understand that the initial inclination is therefore to call me unreasonable. My belief is based on reason. Specifically it is based on personal experience that I believe is non-transferable; I can not convince others of the experience or its meaning. I do not believe I can effectively prove God's existence to others by my personal experience, and have not made that an element of my argument. I'll close this paragraph by noting that attempts to discredit my arguments above by the content of this paragraph would be arguments ad hominem. My argument does not imply the necessity of believing in a deity based on presentation of evidence of a deity. Rather it denies the possibility of denying with certainty that a deity exists based on the certain denial that there is no evidence of the deity. In this response I have done the following: Asserted that atheists who positively claim God's non-existence and who would be swayed to no longer positively assert God's non-existence if presented with evidence of God are necessarily making the deductive argument that if God exists then evidence of God exists, evidence of God does not exist, and that therefore God does not exist. Restated that I am not addressing inductive arguments for God's non-existence, only the particular deductive argument that if God exists then evidence of God exists, evidence of God does not exist, and that therefore God does not exist. Demonstrated that certainty of that the examined subject comes from God or is evidence of God is not necessary to confound this deductive argument. The examined subject need only possibly* originate from God. Restated that I am not attempting to address arguments pertaining to the nature or identity of God with the above argument. Drastically improved the explanation of the reasoning for my assertion that ~5 is incompatible with the deductive argument that if God exists then evidence of God exists, evidence of God does not exist, and that therefore God does not exist. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3530

Posted 05/06/08 - 11:25 AM:	#4
Christiangoth wrote: My argument does not imply the necessity of believing in a deity based on presentation of evidence of a deity. Rather it denies the possibility of denying with certainty that a deity exists based on the certain denial that there is no evidence of the deity. As pointed out above your contention, C-goth, is a strawman. Atheism does not engage in "denying with certainty" but instead denies the existence of god(s) based on the preponderance of sound arguments and strong evidence which call (any) "god exists"-claim into question. In this response I have done the following: Asserted that atheists who positively claim God's non-existence and who would be swayed to no longer positively assert God's non-existence if presented with evidence of God are necessarily making the deductive argument* that if God exists then evidence of God exists, evidence of God does not exist, and that therefore God does not exist. I don't think so. "God" is not supposed to be one fact among others and its "existence" has profound implications for the whole of reality. If there is a god, then everything rigorously known about reality is inexplicable (i.e. miraculous / unintelligible) and human reason / sanity would not be efficacious. But "lack of evidence for a god's existence" does not entail "a god's nonexistence"; rather the efficacy of evidence and sound inference implies that theistic gods exist only in the imagination, or that such gods are merely deistic. One does not have to "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus in order to make an unimpeachable (i.e. denial = irrational and/or disingenuous) case that not only are there no good reasons to believe Santa Claus exists but also that there are good reasons to believe that Santa Claus does not exist. Atheism argues both that there are no good reasons to believe gods exist and that there are good reasons to believe that gods do not exist. Why don't you challenge the best arguments we atheists make rather than the sloppy arguments with which you'd prefer to shadowbox? Edited by 180 Proof on 05/06/08 - 02:26 PM. Reason: insert "in order" ...
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/06/08 - 12:10 PM:	#5
180 Proof wrote: As pointed out above your contention, C-goth, is a strawman. Atheism does not engage in "denying with certainty" but instead denies the existence of god(s) based on the preponderance of sound arguments and strong evidence which call (any) "god exists"-claim into question. My argument is not a straw man because I have explicitly stated that it is not intended to address the very thing that you claim it is a straw man against, uncertain atheism. It is not in question that many atheists do not seek to deny the existence of God with certainty. It was never my intent to address their beliefs, as I have already explicitly stated. I fail to grasp how my argument can be a straw man against their beliefs if I explicitly state that my argument does not and is not intended to discredit their beliefs. It should, however, not be in question that there are some atheists that do assert that God can be denied with certainty. Whether or not an individual believes that these "certain atheists" are practicing good logic, good academic thought, or the espousal of a reasonable claim is not at issue in whether or not they exist. They do exist, and it is not difficult to find them on the Internet. Though their claims seem to me to fall short of reason or academic scholarship, they, as all claims, nonetheless warrant reasoned response. My objection to what, for the purposes of this post, I have called The Atheistic Argument are my reasoned response specifically to these certain atheists, and not to uncertain atheists. 180 Proof wrote: "God" is not supposed to be one fact among others and its "existence" has profound implications for the whole of reality. If there is a god, then everything rigorously known about reality is inexplicable (i.e. miraculous / unintelligible) and human reason / sanity would not be efficacious. If there is a God then reality may still be ordered in such a way that human reason is useful for describing and discerning that reality. The idea that reality has as its originator God is not mutually exclusive with the idea that reason can usefully describe what is real. 180 Proof wrote: But "lack of evidence for a god's existence" does not entail "a god's nonexistence"; rather the efficacy of evidence and sound inference implies that theistic gods exist only in the imagination, or that such gods are merely deistic. This is only true if evidence is asserted not to exist. I assert that one can point even to one's own existence to find evidence that God does. Certainly atheists will disagree, but the nature of the disagreement over whether or not evidence exists hinges upon the question of whether or not any examined subject is evidentiary of God, which itself hinges on whether or not the subject comes from God. Whether or not the subject comes from God is therefore the question; it does if God exists and He created everything in the universe. The issue of deism versus other theism goes to the latter question, the issue of theism versus atheism to the former. To state that any God exists is merely deistic, you have to reject that the examined subject, whatever it be, is from God, and there seems to be no method to do so certainly except the certain denial of God or of His manifest nature in physical reality. This is begging the question, which is my argument. Now I understand that you are not making the positive assertions that my argument deals with. Thus my post never addressed your beliefs. However, your statement to which I am replying, which deals with issues of inductive reasoning, has no bearing on the original post of this thread, which explicitly deals with only positions of deductive reasoning. 180 Proof wrote: Atheism argues both that there are no good reasons to believe gods exist and that there are good reasons to believe that gods do not exist. Why don't you challenge the best arguments we atheists make rather than the sloppy arguments with which you'd prefer to shadowbox? Atheism is heterogeneous. Stronger atheistic positions argue as you have written. Weaker atheistic positions argue with certainty. It is not philosophically wrong of me to point out inherent flaws that exist in these weaker atheistic positions but do not exist in the stronger atheistic positions. Any philosophical position warrants criticism, including weak philosophical positions. I specifically went to substantial effort to make clear that I understand uncertain atheism exists and was not attempting to address it. This does not mean that the argument that I have made has no utility to philosophical discourse. For others that wish to reply to this thread, I ask that consideration be made to the fact that the argument explicitly allows for the existence of uncertain atheism and explicitly only attempts to address certain atheism. I ask further that an argument that explicitly attempts only to discredit certain atheism not be construed as a straw man against uncertain atheism, which it explicitly states it has no bearing on. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 05/06/08 - 01:00 PM:	#6
Christiangoth wrote: I will begin with noting that the use of the language "real adults" in two instances constitutes an argument ad hominem. I really cannot understand how limiting my statements to the experiences of fully competent learners constitutes an ad hominem. If you feel that you are not a fully competent learner, then this is not our problem. Key to what you write here is the phrase "significant confirmation." You are discussing the implications of perceived evidence on an inductive argument. I clearly stated in my post that I had no intent of discussing how evidence or lack of evidence might be perceived as increasing or decreasing the likelihood of the existence of God. I am rather dealing with the issue that there are some atheists that positively assert God's non-existence. Such individuals, if they admit that some subject evidentiary of God exists, must claim a lack of belief in God for a different reason. I also explicitly stated that it was only my intent to address the idea that God's non-existence can be proven by lack of evidence. Thus I made it clear that it was not my intent to discuss other perceived reasons why an individual might claim positively God's non-existence. Questions of evidence are questions of the degree of confirmation of a proposition. Effectively, you are claiming that you do not want to discuss any existing atheist arguments, you want to discuss atheist arguments that you create. Of course, there are cases where lack of evidence is enough to disprove the existence of a particular deity, when the existence of that deity logically entails the presence of certain evidence. Since any theist wants to discuss a particular deity with particular content, there is not much point in arguments about a nebulous deity concept with no empirical content. The modus tollens you use is not applicable because I describe a situation in which orange fruit (evidence) may exist, and the atheist is trying to positively assert that it does not. I believe the atheist is trying to assert that orange fruit does not exist on the basis that the deity does not exist. If I am wrong, then it is not for a reason expressed by this objection. Look at the confusion in that quote! The atheist is trying to say that, based on the available evidence, that God does not exist. This is the same as saying that there are no orange coloured fruit because is no evidence that there is orange coloured fruit. This is not a Straw Man argument. My post is meant to address all positive assertions that God does not exist that would cease to be asserted positively if evidence of God was presented. Of course, no such assertions are made by any atheist. This is why you are making a Straw Man argument. It is true that the watch can not be positively asserted as evidence of your wife's existence by a person that meets you for the first time. However, the positive assertion that your wife exists based on a lack of evidence for your wife's existence demands that the person meeting you assert positively that your watch is not a gift from your wife. If the watch might be a gift from your wife then there is an equal probability that the watch is evidentiary of your wife, and thus an equal probability that evidence of your wife exists. For the positive assertion that your wife does not exist, there must be a positive assertion that evidence of your wife does not exist. Since we agree that your watch exists, we can agree that if your watch might be from your wife, then evidence of your wife might exist. The only way to claim that it does not with certainty is to claim that the probability that the watch comes from your wife is 0, but there is no reason to make that claim without a positive assertion that your wife exists. Herein lies the rub, for we can not assert that your wife does not exist with certainty in order to conclude he same. None of this does anything to repair the serious logical problems in your propositions. While it is true that any gift is an object that could potentially be evidence of a giver, it is only evidence of a giver in certain circumstances. The logical problem of 6 & 9 are fatal to your argument, even against the Straw Man. You focus on what the Atheist cannot establish, but fail to note that you cannot establish proposition 6. You are here objecting to my objection to the coupling of two statements: 12 (or ~5): It is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God. 3: God does not exist. I will admit that you caught me explaining myself very poorly here. I believe that I am correct on the issue, but that it bears clarification. Allow me to readdress the issue: Consider the implications of ~5. ~5 states that in the event that God exists and faith exists then faith may still not come from God. ~5, however, leaves room for God to exist. If ~5 is true then it may be true that evidence of God does not exist even if God exists. If this is the case then premise 1, that if God exists then evidence of God exists, is not true. Thus if ~5 is true, we see that either: God exists (which is ~3). OR If God exists then evidence of God may not exist (which is ~1). Thus for both 3 and ~5 to be the case, ~1 must be the case, but if ~1 is the case then The Atheistic Argument fails. Since ~5 is mutually exclusive with the event that (1 AND 3), The Atheistic Argument can not include ~5 as a premise. This is why atheist arguments generally don't bother with nebulous gods that have no physical effect. It is worth noting that few, if any, theists propose nebulous gods that have no physical effects. My argument is not a straw man because I have explicitly stated that it is not intended to address the very thing that you claim it is a straw man against, uncertain atheism. Your argument is a Straw Man because it is an attempt to assign a weak argument to those who do not believe as you do. You are the only person, anywhere, putting forward the particular argument that you are naming the "Atheistic argument". It may be that because of your particular mania, you seek to find in others the unreasonable zeal that you have. I assert that one can point even to one's own existence to find evidence that God does. Certainly atheists will disagree, but the nature of the disagreement over whether or not evidence exists hinges upon the question of whether or not any examined subject is evidentiary of God, which itself hinges on whether or not the subject comes from God. Whether or not the subject comes from God is therefore the question; it does if God exists and He created everything in the universe. This is a return to the really horrible logical argument that you seemingly refuse to examine. You are making the claim that anything that exists is evidence of God the creator, but there is no logical grounds for making this claim. Heck, we have evidence that there are things in this universe not created by God. The internet is a perfect example.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Bambi
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 17, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 73

Posted 05/06/08 - 01:37 PM:	#7
Well said Kwalish Kid. Most atheists claim that no one has yet presented reliable evidence for God, therefore it is incorrect to assume that God exists. To rewrite your stated 'atheist argument' along these terms would look something like this: 1. Belief in X requires evidence for X. 2. Evidence of God has not been demonstrated. 3. There is no reason to believe in God. The further claim that evidence of God does not or cannot exist is a much tougher argument to make, and would have to be an argument exposing some inconsistency or contradiction in the very idea or concept of god. The second argument is apriori, and would not deal with evidence. Edit: Apparently many people posted in between my writing this post and hitting submit. If I restated anyones argument I apologize.

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/06/08 - 02:26 PM:	#8
Although I still feel that the way that you used the phrase "real adults" was an argument ad hominem, I'll drop it as not substantive to the real topic of discussion. Kwalish Kid wrote: Questions of evidence are questions of the degree of confirmation of a proposition. Effectively, you are claiming that you do not want to discuss any existing atheist arguments, you want to discuss atheist arguments that you create. ... Of course, no such assertions are made by any atheist. This is why you are making a Straw Man argument. ... This is why atheist arguments generally don't bother with nebulous gods that have no physical effect. ... Your argument is a Straw Man because it is an attempt to assign a weak argument to those who do not believe as you do. You are the only person, anywhere, putting forward the particular argument that you are naming the "Atheistic argument". It may be that because of your particular mania, you seek to find in others the unreasonable zeal that you have. The last sentence of this material from you is an entirely separate ad hominem. Putting that aside, do you really believe that every single atheist makes only an uncertain, well-reasoned statement about the non-existence of God? Do you really believe none assert certainty that if no evidence of God exists then God exists and that no evidence of God exists? Note that if even one atheist does so, then my making a rational argument against this position is not only acceptable, but proper. That having been stated, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8WzdRBIv4o&featur... http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=2008050... (many, though not all, of the responses are certain) The characterization you make of atheism as a homogenously argued position is not accurate. The position that I argue against in my post clearly does exist. You and I can agree that the above positions are not logically sound. There is certainly no reason why I am not entitled to address them to the best of my ability in whatever logically sound way I can. Therefore the only issue is whether or not my argument is logically sound. I am clearly not making a straw man argument. Incidentally, even if it were true that no atheists make the claim with certainty, there sould still be no fault in debating the point from an abstract, hypothetical view that one did, so long as the debate stipulated from the beginning that it was not meant to address the existing uncertain atheistic claims. Since I did make this stipulation from the beginning, the argument, even if you felt it was pointless, would not have actually been faulty even if no atheists took the certain position. A straw man argument characterizes a position erroneously. I was not characterizing the uncertain atheist position at all, since I explicitly stated that I was aware of it and was not addressing it. I hope that since I have provided proof that the certain atheist position is espoused, however unreasonably, we will have put to bed the question of whether or not my argument is a straw man argument. Kwalish Kid wrote: Of course, there are cases where lack of evidence is enough to disprove the existence of a particular deity, when the existence of that deity logically entails the presence of certain evidence. Since any theist wants to discuss a particular deity with particular content, there is not much point in arguments about a nebulous deity concept with no empirical content. My argument explicitly states that it does not deal with the issue of identity or nature of God. Certainly I hold that this is important, but it is not impossible for me to deal with this issue later, and begin by demonstrating here that certain denial of God based on certain denial of evidence of God is flawed. In essence, you are attempting to fault my argument for what it does not state, instead of what it does state. This is not good philosophy. If my argument is unsound then explain what it has said that is untrue or faulty, but do not attempt to fault the argument for that it does not deal with more than a single, specific issue. Kwalish Kid wrote: Look at the confusion in that quote! The atheist is trying to say that, based on the available evidence, that God does not exist. This is the same as saying that there are no orange coloured fruit because is no evidence that there is orange coloured fruit. Your orange fruit example does not perfectly equate to the argument that I posted. In my argument we have an individual that sees a subject in physical reality, must ascribe a judgement as to whether or not it is evidentiary of God, and use that judgement to determine whether or not God exists. In your orange fruit example, the individual sees the orange fruit and use that existing orange fruit to determine whether or not God exists. My example contains a subject, a statement about the subject, and a conclusion from the statement about the subject. Your example has a subject and a conclusion about the subject, completely cutting out the middle of my example, the statement about the subject. The statement about the subject is crucial because in my example, the atheist believes that he is certain about that statement, but I am attacking that sense of certainty. A more appropriate parallel example would be if the existence of an orange fruit disproved the existence of a deity, and a blind man found a piece of fruit. The blind man, for our purposes, has no way to know the fruits color. In the same way, the atheist finds a dog and has no way to know whether or not the dog is evidentiary of God (it is if God created it, it is not if God did not). My objection goes to a belief that the atheist is claiming the dog is not evidence of God because God can't have created it because God doesn't exist. Since the dog isn't evidence of God, the certain belief that evidence of God doesn't exist and the atheist's certain disbelief in God is left intact. This is like the blind man assuming that the deity does exist (does exist in your example is actually logically equivalent to does not exist in my example), and so the fruit must not be orange (the dog must not be evidence of God), and thus the deity does exist (equivalent in my example to the deity not existing). The reason that your example has the deity existing as the logical equivalent of my example having the deity not existing is because in your example, even if the deity does not exist, the fruit may not be orange, but if the fruit is orange then the deity definitely does not exist; in my example even if the god does exist then the dog may not be evidence of God, but if the dog is evidence of God then God definitely does exist. It was the initial disparity between your example and mine which, I believe, led to your statement that my response was confused. Kwalish Kid wrote: None of this does anything to repair the serious logical problems in your propositions. While it is true that any gift is an object that could potentially be evidence of a giver, it is only evidence of a giver in certain circumstances. The logical problem of 6 & 9 are fatal to your argument... You focus on what the Atheist cannot establish, but fail to note that you cannot establish proposition 6. ... This is a return to the really horrible logical argument that you seemingly refuse to examine. You are making the claim that anything that exists is evidence of God the creator, but there is no logical grounds for making this claim. The issue is that I do not need to positively assert 6. I have demonstrated that in order for what I have called The Atheistic Argument to stand with certainty, it is necessary for the atheist to state with certainty that at least one of premises 4-7 is not true. If premises 4-7 even might be true, then The Atheistic Argument fails to maintain certainty. This is the whole reason why I have objected to a certain argument with this thread instead of an uncertain argument; if I was attempting to an uncertain atheist position then I would need to positively assert 4-7, and if I could effectively positively assert 7 then no further discussion would be necessary, anyway. Kwalish Kid wrote: Heck, we have evidence that there are things in this universe not created by God. The internet is a perfect example. The Internet is made up of parts which can be asserted the creation of God. Even if it wasn't, this objection would not hold water unless every created thing were asserted to have been created by mortals (of some form, such as aliens). This would require mortals to have created themselves, or otherwise an infinite backward chain of mortals creating each other. It is unclear how mortals could possibly have created space and time. It is also possible that if a mortal creates another mortal, this is the mechanism by which God created the second mortal. Since the latter idea can not be disproven, it is still possible that the second mortal is God's creation. Regardless, the component-part idea, that the Internet exists in pieces created by God, is alone sufficient to deal with the idea. In this response I have: Provided evidence that some atheists do make certain claims about God's nonexistence. Restated that the issue of theistic identity is not important to my argument. Pointed out that the orange fruit example does not perfectly equate to the argument I am making, and revised it such that it does. In this form it shows the same problem as The Atheistic Argument. Explained why my argument does not require positive assertion of premises 4-7 in order to demonstrate the fallacy of The Atheistic Argument when The Atheistic Argument is used with certainty. *Argued that the existence of man-made objects do not discredit the possibility of subjects that are evidentiary of God for multiple reasons. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3530

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:09 PM:	#9
Christiangoth - Denial or affirmation of states-of-affairs (i.e. fact-claims) *with certainty* is like denying or affirming happily: the emotion accompanying the propositional statement neither adds nor subtracts from its force (i.e. truth-condition), so to take issue with atheists who express their "denial of god's existence with certainty" is cognitively indistinguishable from taking issue with a less florid, more precise expression of "denial of god's existence" and evades the reasons for (or reasonableness of) the atheistic-denial itself. Taking issue with an avowal is cognitively vacuous, so let's stipulate your non-point, and grant the benefit of the doubt that there's a cognitive argument buried somewhere in that smoking pile of an OP.
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/06/08 - 03:58 PM:	#10
180 Proof wrote: Denial or affirmation of states-of-affairs (i.e. fact-claims) *with certainty* is like denying or affirming *happily: the emotion accompanying the propositional statement neither adds nor subtracts from its force (i.e. truth-condition), so to take issue with atheists who express their "denial of god's existence with certainty"* is cognitively indistinguishable from taking issue with a less florid, more precise expression of "denial of god's existence" and evades the reasons for (or reasonableness of) the atheistic-denial itself. Taking issue with an avowal is cognitively vacuous, so let's stipulate your non-point, and grant the benefit of the doubt that there's a cognitive argument buried somewhere in that smoking pile of an OP. I certainly agree that denying or affirming the idea that somebody did something "happily" would not change the more substantive point that they did that thing. However, addressing the issue of certainty actually has logical bearing. An atheist that asserts a 100% likelihood that God does not exist is expressing something not only substantively, but even drastically different from one that asserts that the probability of God existing is extremely low. There actually functional differences in other theological discussions that arise out of whether an atheist brings a belief of 100% or 99.9999999999(etc.)% likelihood that God does not exist. One such theological issue is Pascal's Wager. If the chance of God existing is 0 then Pascal's writing is worthless from the outset, if it is greater than 0 then Pascal's Wager bears consideration. Clarifying whether unbelief is held with certainty or high but ultimately finite confidence is directly substantive to the issue, whereas whether or not something is done happily is usually not directly substantive to the issue of whether or not it is done. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/06/08 - 06:31 PM:	#11
Christiangoth, It is trivially true that a claim that is not tautological cannot be shown to be 100% or certainly true nor can a claim that is not a self-contradiction be shown to be 100% or certainly false in the logical sense of certainty. Therefore, when people say they're 100% certain that something about contingent reality is or is not the case, either they are expressing an emotional or psychological disposition toward the claim, or they are wrong. This applies equally to atheists who claim to be 100% certain that God does not exist, and to theists who claim to be 100% certain that God exists. Since there are far more theists who claim to be certain that God exists than atheists who claim to be certain that God does not exist, it would seem to me that if you want to rid the issue of this kind of error, it would be far more effective to focus on the vastly more numerous erroneous theists. Cheers, jd Edited by jdrw on 05/06/08 - 09:28 PM
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Bambi
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 17, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 73

Posted 05/07/08 - 10:55 AM:	#12
Perhaps the disconnect here is that when I say "god does not exist" I mean it with just as much certainty as when I say it about anything else that doesn't exist. I am equally certain that god, Santa Clause, and pink elephants orbiting Jupiter do not exist. But someone with a less scientific mindset interprets this statement as saying "I am categorically certain that god does not exist, and nothing could possibly change my mind about this." Since theists are more likely to hold such a viewpoint about God's existence it is easier for them to attribute an equal vehemence to atheistic statements.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 05/07/08 - 11:11 AM:	#13
Christiangoth wrote: The last sentence of this material from you is an entirely separate ad hominem. Are taking offence at true statements? You were the one who brought up that your belief could not be changed by reasonable means. Putting that aside, do you really believe that every single atheist makes only an uncertain, well-reasoned statement about the non-existence of God? Do you really believe none assert certainty that if no evidence of God exists then God exists and that no evidence of God exists? Note that if even one atheist does so, then my making a rational argument against this position is not only acceptable, but proper. That having been stated, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA There is no argument in this video of the kind that you promote. The main argument in the video rely upon a special definition of "existence" that you may disagree with, but presenting a Straw Man does nothing to aid you in this effort. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8WzdRBIv4o&featur... This video is too long for me to spend time on, but it is clear from the start (the appeal to Ockam's Razor) that it too is taking an inductive approach to the evidence. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=2008050... (many, though not all, of the responses are certain) If you feel that you should address random answers on a Yahoo group, then stick to the Yahoo group. It may be that your logical fallacies belong there. The characterization you make of atheism as a homogenously argued position is not accurate. The position that I argue against in my post clearly does exist. You and I can agree that the above positions are not logically sound. There is certainly no reason why I am not entitled to address them to the best of my ability in whatever logically sound way I can. Therefore the only issue is whether or not my argument is logically sound. I am clearly not making a straw man argument. You have given us no reason to believe that this position is held by reasonable thinkers or that the argument as you put it forward is actually produced by any person other than yourself. This latter part alone makes the argument a Straw Man. Incidentally, even if it were true that no atheists make the claim with certainty, there sould still be no fault in debating the point from an abstract, hypothetical view that one did, so long as the debate stipulated from the beginning that it was not meant to address the existing uncertain atheistic claims. Since I did make this stipulation from the beginning, the argument, even if you felt it was pointless, would not have actually been faulty even if no atheists took the certain position. A straw man argument characterizes a position erroneously. I was not characterizing the uncertain atheist position at all, since I explicitly stated that I was aware of it and was not addressing it. Fine. Then move on to analyzing the logical fallacy that you use in addressing the question. Your orange fruit example does not perfectly equate to the argument that I posted. Of course it doesn't. I was pointing out how misguided your argument is in characterizing any atheist argument. In my argument we have an individual that sees a subject in physical reality, must ascribe a judgement as to whether or not it is evidentiary of God, and use that judgement to determine whether or not God exists. In your orange fruit example, the individual sees the orange fruit and use that existing orange fruit to determine whether or not God exists. My example contains a subject, a statement about the subject, and a conclusion from the statement about the subject. Your example has a subject and a conclusion about the subject, completely cutting out the middle of my example, the statement about the subject. The statement about the subject is crucial because in my example, the atheist believes that he is certain about that statement, but I am attacking that sense of certainty. A more appropriate parallel example would be if the existence of an orange fruit disproved the existence of a deity, and a blind man found a piece of fruit. The blind man, for our purposes, has no way to know the fruits color. In the same way, the atheist finds a dog and has no way to know whether or not the dog is evidentiary of God (it is if God created it, it is not if God did not). My objection goes to a belief that the atheist is claiming the dog is not evidence of God because God can't have created it because God doesn't exist. Exactly. But no atheist does this. Even the certain ones. The issue is that I do not need to positively assert 6. I have demonstrated that in order for what I have called The Atheistic Argument to stand with certainty, it is necessary for the atheist to state with certainty that at least one of premises 4-7 is not true. But premise 6 is demonstrably not true. This is your problem. A gift is not evidence for a giver. In this response I have: Provided evidence that some atheists do make certain claims about God's nonexistence. But not that they have anything to do with your argument. Restated that the issue of theistic identity is not important to my argument. Thus confirming our suspicion that it is not really very important. Pointed out that the orange fruit example does not perfectly equate to the argument I am making, and revised it such that it does. In this form it shows the same problem as The Atheistic Argument. But shown that your argument is nothing like any existing argument given by an atheist. Explained why my argument does not require positive assertion of premises 4-7 in order to demonstrate the fallacy of The Atheistic Argument when The Atheistic Argument is used with certainty. But failed to address the fact that one of said propositions is simply false. *Argued that the existence of man-made objects do not discredit the possibility of subjects that are evidentiary of God for multiple reasons. Which, ironically but not surprisingly, misses the point of how you originally phrased your position.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/07/08 - 11:22 AM:	#14
In reply to the comments of Bambi, I understand that claiming not to believe in God is different from claiming to be certain of God's nonexistence. However, my argument was warranted because I was able to provide citation of the fact that not all atheists claim uncertainty in their beliefs. Their position, however flawed, demands a rational response. Regarding the comments of both Bambi and jdrw, whether or not theists are more likely than atheists to claim certainty in their beliefs is not at issue in whether or not the argument I have made was justified. Incidentally, and I'll stress first the fact that what I am about to state is logically inconsequential to the original argument of this thread, I actually do assert my belief in God with certainty. How can I possibly justify this? My belief is that God created logic. Thus He exists outside of logic (I use the past-tense to reflect God's constancy and position beyond time, but because of that same position beyond time any tense is somewhat inadequate). Existing outside of logic, He is not limited by it; He can do the logically impossible. This does not mean He always does, nor that creation itself is not organized in such a way as for logic to be generally useful in its conceptualization. However, in being able to do the logically impossible, He is certainly able to bestow an experience that provides absolute certainty of His existence, rather even than the very high degree of belief that would come from sight or sound. I expect that I'll get comments on this position. It was never my intent to discuss it in this thread, but I also won't shy away from the discussion should it come. On all subjects being discussed, comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/07/08 - 02:00 PM:	#15
1: 1: If God exists then evidence of God exists in physical reality. 13: If it is not true that (premise 7) God exists then it is true that (premise 2) evidence of God does not exist in physical reality. 14 (or ~7): It is not true that (premise 7) God exists. 2: Evidence of God does not exist in physical reality (13,14). 3: God does not exist. The inference of 2 from 13, 14 cannot be right. 13 is: ~G -> ~E and 14 is ~G, so modus ponens gives you 2. But 13 is suspect to say the least. It rules out the possibility that God might fail to exist (~G), yet there is evidence that God exists. Surely, you have heard of "misleading evidence."

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/07/08 - 02:09 PM:	#16
BTW, I wish you had rendered the plain English arguments more elegantly. For example, "11: If it is not true that (premise 5) if God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God then it is true that (premise 2) evidence of God does not exist in physical reality" is very difficult to read. I suggest converting the arguments into formal logic and writing them in normal, readable English.

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:37 PM:	#17
Kwalish Kid wrote: There is no argument in this video of the kind that you promote. The main argument in the video rely upon a special definition of "existence" that you may disagree with, but presenting a Straw Man does nothing to aid you in this effort. ... This video is too long for me to spend time on, but it is clear from the start (the appeal to Ockam's Razor) that it too is taking an inductive approach to the evidence. ... If you feel that you should address random answers on a Yahoo group, then stick to the Yahoo group. It may be that your logical fallacies belong there. ... You have given us no reason to believe that this position is held by reasonable thinkers or that the argument as you put it forward is actually produced by any person other than yourself. This latter part alone makes the argument a Straw Man. ... I was pointing out how misguided your argument is in characterizing any atheist argument. ... your argument is nothing like any existing argument given by an atheist. I have previously argued that whenever an atheist claims certainty of God's nonexistence and also would be swayed to believe in at least a probability of God's existence greater than 0 if evidence of God's existence was presented to them, they are inherently making what for the purposes of this thread has been called The Atheistic Argument. The first video asserts certainty of God's nonexistence and uses lack of evidence to justify this, the second does use Ockam's Razor, but to the erroneous way of asserting God's certain nonexistence (the word "proof" is used). I fail to see why atheists expressing true certainty on Yahoo Answers is different than if they expressed the certainty elsewhere. Certainty is certainty anywhere. This is a position that rather clearly exists, and I see no basis for your assumption that of all the atheists in the world, there are no atheists at all using this argument. Rather, it seems to me prevalent among a large number of less academic atheists at least. You use the phrase "reasonable thinkers." Should I only argue against reasonable thinkers? Should I never address the logical fallacies of weak arguments? If a weak argument is not to be argued against logically, then in some respects it may be stronger than a strong argument. The strong argument holds well against logical response, either failing with difficulty or not at all, but the weak argument need not hold at all! Kwalish Kid wrote: A gift is not evidence for a giver. ... [Premise 6] is simply false. Your objection hinges on the idea that an individual might conclude something untrue about the examined subject. If someone sees your watch then they might assume it was not given to you. However, at issue is that this assumption would be uncertain. The watch could lead a person to believe that you had purchased (or found, or stolen) a watch for yourself. It could also lead a person to believe that you had been given a watch. The observer could have actually believed any of these before seeing the watch. He could assume that you were in possession of a watch and you had acquired it by buying it, being given it, etc. He could also have assumed you had not been given a watch at all. After seeing the watch, the observer may be led to believe that the watch was given to you by your wife with a greater proportion of certainty than he previously had believed. This goes to how evidence was defined at the very beginning of my first post: "evidence, defined as anything demonstrably in existence which may lead one to believe one of multiple belief options." An atheist has to assert that there is no way that a dog could have been created by God in order for the dog to not be evidentiary of God's existence. The atheist can not accomplish this without claiming that God exists. If the atheist claims that God exists, then the atheist can not use the dog's status as non-evidentiary of God to justify his certain disbelief in God. The carefully chosen definition of evidence means that premise 6 is true. Kwalish Kid wrote: Thus confirming our suspicion that it is not really very important. And yet you are here arguing against it. I wrote: In this response I have ... argued that the existence of man-made objects do not discredit the possibility of subjects that are evidentiary of God for multiple reasons. To which Kwalish Kid responded: Which, ironically but not surprisingly, misses the point of how you originally phrased your position. You are right. Allow me to better deal with the Internet. Simply put, it can not be proven that the Internet is not a gift from God. It may be the case, for example, that God created the Internet by means of inspiring humans to create it. Thus the Internet can be used as the examined subject. 7 wrote: The inference of 2 from 13, 14 cannot be right. 13 is: ~G -> ~E and 14 is ~G, so modus ponens gives you 2. But 13 is suspect to say the least. It rules out the possibility that God might fail to exist (~G), yet there is evidence that God exists. Surely, you have heard of "misleading evidence." You are absolutely right. 13 is incorrect. Notice, however, that 13 is a premise that must be adopted by the atheist in support of 2, which effort ultimately fails anyway. Thus The Atheistic Argument as defined in this thread fails both because it begs the question AND because it relies on certainty of 13 where certainty is not forthcoming. My objection to the Atheistic Argument is left unchanged. jdrw wrote: Whether God is “outside of logic” or not is entirely irrelevant. Your claims are not outside logic, and it is your claims that we can analyze and determine to be logical or not. ... if you think this is too much of a tangent to the main thrust of your thread, just let me know, and I’ll break it off into it’s own thread. That would probably be wise. Otherwise the thread could become crazy very fast. In this response I have: Justified my claim that the cited sources of atheists involve what for the purposes of this thread is being called The Atheistic Argument and that their positions are worth opposing. Reiterated the definition of evidence as it is being used for this thread and justified premise 6 according that definition. Defended the position that the evidentiary subject may be anything demonstrably in physical existence by pointing out that there is at least one potential mechanism by which God may be attributed as the creator of anthropogenic subjects. Stated that the uncertainty of 13 does not affect my objection to The Atheistic Argument as it is defined in this thread. Rather, it makes The Atheistic Argument more wrong. Comments, questions, and criticism are welcome, but please try to keep things academic and civil. In Christ, ~~Christiangoth

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:30 PM:	#18
Christiangoth wrote: I have previously argued that whenever an atheist claims certainty of God's nonexistence and also would be swayed to believe in at least a probability of God's existence greater than 0 if evidence of God's existence was presented to them, they are inherently making what for the purposes of this thread has been called The Atheistic Argument. You have said this, not argued it. You failed to produce an example of anyone actually doing this. Hence why every single person here, atheist or not, recognizes you to be making a Straw Man argument. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/duad/200... The first video asserts certainty of God's nonexistence and uses lack of evidence to justify this, This is a mischaracterisation of the video. the second does use Ockam's Razor, but to the erroneous way of asserting God's certain nonexistence (the word "proof" is used). I fail to see why atheists expressing true certainty on Yahoo Answers is different than if they expressed the certainty elsewhere. Certainty is certainty anywhere. This is a position that rather clearly exists, and I see no basis for your assumption that of all the atheists in the world, there are no atheists at all using this argument. Rather, it seems to me prevalent among a large number of less academic atheists at least. All that is needed to deal with these people is to point out the fallacy of their statement or accept that, as people here have pointed out, that they are not using "certainty" in the same way you would like to. It is not appropriate to also engage in fallacious reasoning. Your objection hinges on the idea that an individual might conclude something untrue about the examined subject. No, My objection is that it is false that a gift is evidence of a giver. That we know that something is a gift makes it evidence that there is a being that is a giver, but this is quite a different proposition. "evidence, defined as anything demonstrably in existence which may lead one to believe one of multiple belief options." Under this definition, everything is evidence for every proposition. Thus it's a really, really bad definition for evidence. An atheist has to assert that there is no way that a dog could have been created by God in order for the dog to not be evidentiary of God's existence. The atheist can not accomplish this without claiming that God exists. If the atheist claims that God exists, then the atheist can not use the dog's status as non-evidentiary of God to justify his certain disbelief in God. That is simply ludicrous. Any individual, atheist or theist, requires some reason to take any particular object as evidence of a creator, divine or otherwise. An atheist might claim that dogs can only be created through natural means and thus cannot, in principle, be evidence for divine intervention. (I think that this position would be mistaken.) The carefully chosen definition of evidence means that premise 6 is true. It also means that evidence doesn't work in the way that is in any way useful. And yet you are here arguing against it. Because I feel that it is important for others who might come across this argument to see just how bad it is. The convoluted nature of your writing might make finding the problems in it helpful for other readers. You are right. Allow me to better deal with the Internet. Simply put, it can not be proven that the Internet is not a gift from God. It may be the case, for example, that God created the Internet by means of inspiring humans to create it. Thus the Internet can be used as the examined subject. But this leads you to the point where you have no meaningful concept of evidence. You could use the same reasoning to claim that the internet is evidence that I created the internet. It should not be the case that any object whatsoever can be used as evidence for every conceivable creator. Justified my claim that the cited sources of atheists involve what for the purposes of this thread is being called The Atheistic Argument and that their positions are worth opposing. Hardly. You cannot point to any person who actually uses the reasoning in question. Reiterated the definition of evidence as it is being used for this thread and justified premise 6 according that definition. You did reiterate the very, very bad definition. I'm glad, because it's important to recognize these mistakes!
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious pla